Is the global-warming establishment suppressing dissent?

posted at 8:01 am on May 16, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Science, most of us learned in school, is a collaborative and ongoing effort to learn the truth through research, hypotheses, testing, and challenge. These days, science appears more to be a belief system in which heretics are summarily dismissed. Such was the case with Lennart Bengtsson, a climate research fellow at the University of Reading, whose heresy was to challenge the anthropogenic global-warming establishment — not by disputing AGW, but to point out the errors in the hypotheses and models and postulate through collected data that the effect was much slower and milder than the IPCC claims. For this, Bengtsson claims his work has been suppressed, and the Times of London has followed up on the story (via Jeff Dunetz):

Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of the authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published. “The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,” he added.

Professor Bengtsson’s paper challenged the finding of the UN’s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double.

It suggested that the climate might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out “to reduce the underlying uncertainty”.

The five contributing scientists, from America and Sweden, submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters, one of the most highly regarded journals, at the end of last year but were told in February that it had been rejected.

A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process wrote that he strongly advised against publishing it because it was “less than helpful”.

The unnamed scientist concluded: “Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate skeptics media side.”

The report from the ToL is significant, in part because the skeptic views have largely been covered only by the Telegraph in the UK. In Germany, Bengtsson’s plight drew the attention of the usually AGW-friendly Der Spiegel earlier this week when Bengtsson joined a skeptic think tank:

The debate over climate change is often a contentious one, and key players in the discussion only rarely switch sides. But late last month, Lennart Bengtsson, the former director of the Hamburg-based Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, one of the world’s leading climate research centers, announced he would join the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

GWPF, based in Britain, is a non-profit organization and self-described think tank. Conservative politician Nigel Lawson founded the organization in 2009 in order to counteract what he considered to be an exaggerated concern about global warming. The organization uses aggressive information campaigns to pursue its goals.

The lobby group’s views markedly differ from those of the UN climate panel, the IPCC, whose reports are the products of the work of hundreds of scientists who classify and analyze vast amounts of climate knowledge accumulated through years of research. The most recent IPCC report states that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are leading to significant global warming, with serious environmental consequences.

Bengtsson was known for maintaining moderate positions even during the most vitriolic debates over global warming during the 1990s.

However, Bengtsson didn’t stick around GWPF for long, after being hounded into resigning within days:

A climate change researcher has claimed that scientists are confusing their role as impartial observers with green activism after his paper challenging predictions about the speed of global warming was rejected because it was seen as “less than helpful.”

Professor Lennart Bengtsson says recent McCarthy-style pressure from fellow academics forced him to resign from his post on a climate sceptic think-tank.

The research fellow from the University of Reading believes a paper he co-authored was deliberately suppressed from publicatoin in a leading journal because of an intolerance of dissenting views about climate change by scientists who peer-reviewed the work. …

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), which was founded by former chancellor of the exchequer Lord Lawson, was established because of concerns that government policies to combat climate change may be too radical.

The think tank describes itself as ‘open-minded on the contested science of global warming’.

Lord Lawson has agreed that Professor Bengtsson’s reference to McCarthyism were “fully warranted.”

The only criteria that should be used to publish a scientific paper is the science itself, not whether it gives aid and comfort to one’s political opponents. It’s episodes like these, and declarations that the “debate is over” and that every hot summer and brush fire proves AGW but every cold winter is just weather, that have more and more people scoffing at global-warning hysteria. The models produced by the IPCC have not accurately predicted anything as of yet, and Bengtsson’s paper may have an explanation for why. However, those who have a vested interest in pushing AGW want to make sure that no one gets a chance to see it in a peer-reviewed journal, and then will later attempt to discredit Bengtsson for not having published his findings in the traditional manner.

That’s a lot of things … but it’s not science.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Just ask Mark Steyn.

Drained Brain on May 16, 2014 at 8:05 AM

The computer models have no idea how clouds work,
which makes said models inaccurate.
BISHOP??

Neal4007 on May 16, 2014 at 8:07 AM

When you encounter good scientists in their fields from all over who have been marginalized, castigated, threatened, blacklisted, etc. from getting their work published, you start to realize the establishment of Academic Peer Reviewed Science is nothing more than a damned joke.
Politics at its very finest.
This has been the case since forever.
I think the only reason it has gotten as bad as it is now is bcs a scientist now has the Internet to go to to release their work.
Hence the campaign to marginalize & denigrate to destroy said scientist’s credibility.
Only those with a sane mind and a knowing eye can see through these charades.
And even then those of us who do are also marginalized in turn.
A scientist who questions the ‘consensus’ dogma is a rogue & must be put down like a rabid animal.
So when large groups of scientists, organizations etc. gang up on another scientist, I am usually quite interested in that person’s work.
Bcs I’ve met many scientists and you can be sure they are like the US Congress: Corrupt to the core. And even if you have a wide eyed ideal neophyte with fresh ideas join their ranks, they are either destroyed or converted to corruption.

Badger40 on May 16, 2014 at 8:08 AM

A century from now people are going to look back at this whole greenhouse effect/global warming/climate change thing and say … ‘really? How in the world were people that naive.’

This is the greatest farce of our lifetimes.

forheremenaremen on May 16, 2014 at 8:09 AM

This is typical of the anti-intellectual streak on the right of late. You insist that no matter how badly prepared you are to do the math yourself that you simply MUST be as smart as the experts in the field. So naturally when your numbers come out different it’s their fault.
>

rogerb on May 16, 2014 at 8:10 AM

Does the dictator suppress dissent?… Because global warming is a hoax and now becoming an insane religious cult it is by nature that it will suppress dissent…

mnjg on May 16, 2014 at 8:13 AM

This article is about the very real intolerance of dissent and intellectual fascism in climate research. Over at NRO the same subject became a raging argument about whether AGW is real and/or a dangerous threat.

I’m on the (deeply) skeptical side, but I did get tired of commenter after commenter- by the hundreds- throwing links and “facts” at each other that supposedly “prove” one side or the other. It goes nowhere.

Bat Chain Puller on May 16, 2014 at 8:14 AM

“The orthodoxy produced by intellectual fashions, specialization, and the appeal to authorities is the death of knowledge, and that the growth of knowledge depends entirely upon disagreement.” — Karl Popper

furytrader on May 16, 2014 at 8:15 AM

Is the global-warming establishment suppressing dissent?

Yes… and they’re getting more obvious about it.

Next question…

CPT. Charles on May 16, 2014 at 8:16 AM

Real scientists are always asking questions, looking for answers and understand that the last word hasn’t been spoken and never will be. They know the difference between a theory and a fact and don’t confuse the 2.

crankyoldlady on May 16, 2014 at 8:16 AM

The GW cabal has been suppressing dissent, and burying contradictory evidence (“hide the decline!”) for years now.

AZCoyote on May 16, 2014 at 8:17 AM

All I’ll say is that there is no such thing as settled science. That is a political statement not a scientific one.

The leftists claiming that they have all the answers- including the assertions that there is no doubt that global warming is real, that it is man-caused, and that it can be reversed or mitigated by curbing cow flatulence.

In other words the zealots who ascibe the the mytholgy of the global warming activists are not the kind of people that you can sit down with and have a serious scientific discussion. You might as well be watching An Inconvenient Truth with Al Gore talking about drowning polar bears or Bill Nye the “science guy” who has no relevant scientific background at all (he has an engineering degree).

Happy Nomad on May 16, 2014 at 8:20 AM

This whole debate is a disgrace for anyone that loves science and the scientific method. What are they going to say to the kids that are being brainwashed when they figure out it was all a hoax?

jmtham156 on May 16, 2014 at 8:20 AM

Is the Pope a socialist?

jmtham156 on May 16, 2014 at 8:22 AM

The worst part of this global warming scare is how it echoes the great scare of the 1970s. I’m not talking about the global cooling scare which was eclipsed by the so-called energy crisis.

Allegedly by the year 2000 we want have any oil or natural gas to burn and even coal would be more difficult to extract. This wasn’t an opinion of a few cranks scientist, this was the opinion of most government scientist. The ‘shills’ from industry kept claiming their was plenty, issues had to do with price controls, but you know how corporation scientists will say anything for a buck…

Fast forward to today where we have so much oil and natural gas and we appear to have enough far into the 21st century that we can fill the atmosphere with a allegedly dangerous amount of carbon dioxide.

nemo on May 16, 2014 at 8:22 AM

The truth is that you can buy any result you want and governments want the global warming justification for their never ending regulations and taxes.

meci on May 16, 2014 at 8:22 AM

I’ll just say the warmist scaremongers have seriously overplayed their hand. It’s downhill for them from here on, and they never really had much public support anyway.

The drastic “solutions” they want aren’t going to happen.

Bat Chain Puller on May 16, 2014 at 8:24 AM

Is the global-warming establishment suppressing dissent?

Yes.
Next question?

dentalque on May 16, 2014 at 8:24 AM

It’s a modern version of Lysenkoism.

Steven Den Beste on May 16, 2014 at 8:25 AM

“Consensus” is NOT science.

Anyone who uses “consensus” to support their argument has already lost the debate.

TKindred on May 16, 2014 at 8:25 AM

…Bill Nye the “science guy” who has no relevant scientific background at all (he has an engineering degree).

I’m no fan of Bill Nye, but as an engineer I have a problem with that statement. What scientific understanding do you think I lack?

Bat Chain Puller on May 16, 2014 at 8:26 AM

STFU they explained.

vnvet on May 16, 2014 at 8:27 AM

Is the global-warming establishment suppressing dissent?

Duh!    Does the ‘climategate’ emails resonate at all?

This has been known by real scientists, real journalists, real people, for a long time.

TerryW on May 16, 2014 at 8:27 AM

Can we all say Grant Money!

tim c on May 16, 2014 at 8:28 AM

Science, most of us learned in school, is a collaborative and ongoing effort to learn the truth through research, hypotheses, testing, and challenge.

Knowledge is power in currency, quickly gaining a wealth in corruption less than or equal to absolute. Yeah they left that part out.

onomo on May 16, 2014 at 8:30 AM

Say it ain’t so

cmsinaz on May 16, 2014 at 8:30 AM

Wake up, people! We have only 500 days before the oceans drown Mt. Everest!

NotCoach on May 16, 2014 at 8:32 AM

Thought it was settled!

“sign ze paper”
“I cannot sign the paper”
“SIGN ZE PAPER”!
“I cannot sign the paper”
“UND VHY CAN U NOT SIGN ZE PAPER”?
“because you have broken my fingers”

faol on May 16, 2014 at 8:33 AM

The weatherman said it was going to rain all week. It just started yesterday afternoon after 4 days waiting. Wednesday morning, they said it was going to rain all afternoon. It was the most beautiful day ever. Why should anyone believe people that can’t even forecast 8 hours out correctly?

el hombre on May 16, 2014 at 8:34 AM

Is the Pope a socialist?

jmtham156 on May 16, 2014 at 8:22 AM

Good one.

crankyoldlady on May 16, 2014 at 8:34 AM

The only criteria that should be used to publish a scientific paper is the science itself, not whether it gives aid and comfort to one’s political opponents.

Global Warming/Climate Science is big business with lots of money to be made…The same corruption has happened in some disciplines of Medicine and the result is conflicting interests that encourages falsified data to keep the funding flowing and manipulates the public through hysteria and harassment with the aid of the corrupt media.

This politicized corruption has happened in many disciplines and is pervasive in academia.

This corruption has happened in the discipline of History.

It has happened in Medical science and research.

It has happened in the discipline of Literature and the Arts.

It is a breakdown of the culture.

It is increasingly difficult for the public to discern the politicized agenda from actual research and criticism of popular agenda results in ostracizing the critic.

workingclass artist on May 16, 2014 at 8:34 AM

Is the sky blue?

oldleprechaun on May 16, 2014 at 8:34 AM

I’m no fan of Bill Nye, but as an engineer I have a problem with that statement. What scientific understanding do you think I lack?

Bat Chain Puller on May 16, 2014 at 8:26 AM

Bill Nye has a degree in Mechanical Engineering. How does that translate into expertise in global warming?

Happy Nomad on May 16, 2014 at 8:37 AM

I’m no fan of Bill Nye, but as an engineer I have a problem with that statement. What scientific understanding do you think I lack?

Bat Chain Puller on May 16, 2014 at 8:26 AM

So you are saying, as an engineer, that you have the same grasp of science as someone that has his/her doctorate in a specific science field.

MoreLiberty on May 16, 2014 at 8:37 AM

Wake up, people! We have only 500 days before the oceans drown Mt. Everest!

NotCoach on May 16, 2014 at 8:32 AM

498 now.

crankyoldlady on May 16, 2014 at 8:39 AM

498 now.

crankyoldlady on May 16, 2014 at 8:39 AM

OMG!!

NotCoach on May 16, 2014 at 8:41 AM

When do the burning of heretics start?

Wait…burning…uhhh, were going to need a different method.

Bishop on May 16, 2014 at 8:46 AM

I know a science teacher who claims there will never be another ice age. How can you have any faith in the intelligence of someone like that.

crankyoldlady on May 16, 2014 at 8:49 AM

Engineers have to understand physics. 90% of science is physics, even the life sciences.

No, engineers don’t have deep specific training in climate science. But a good understanding of physics does qualify someone to explain climactic processes to a general audience.

I don’t think Bill Nye is unqualified. I think he’s just wrong.

Bat Chain Puller on May 16, 2014 at 8:50 AM

However, Bengtsson didn’t stick around GWPF for long, after being hounded into resigning within days:

Einstein’s Relativity Theories are still being tested to this day even though our GPS system is based on it, and it’s stuck around for one hundred years.

Good rule of thumb: if your scientific theory can’t handle any criticism or skepticism, it’s most likely wrong.

rbj on May 16, 2014 at 8:50 AM

It’s a modern version of Lysenkoism.

Steven Den Beste on May 16, 2014 at 8:25 AM

No shock, given the openly totalitarian bent of some on the left nowadays. You know if they could have show trials for the global warming heretics, they’d do it in a heartbeat (or before the next time Al Gore expands his carbon footprint with another needless private plane flight….)

jon1979 on May 16, 2014 at 8:50 AM

climactic = climatic

Bat Chain Puller on May 16, 2014 at 8:50 AM

When do the burning of heretics start?

Wait…burning…uhhh, were going to need a different method.

Bishop on May 16, 2014 at 8:46 AM

Carbonite.

NotCoach on May 16, 2014 at 8:51 AM

I don’t think Bill Nye is unqualified. I think he’s just wrong.

Bat Chain Puller on May 16, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Wrong, mentally deranged; you say tomahto, I say tomayto. Whatever.

NotCoach on May 16, 2014 at 8:52 AM

And even if you have a wide eyed ideal neophyte with fresh ideas join their ranks, they are either destroyed or converted to corruption.

Badger40 on May 16, 2014 at 8:08 AM

That sounds like what happens to the newbies we vote to send to Washington.

Walter L. Newton on May 16, 2014 at 8:53 AM

“During a recent visit to Daemen College, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was asked what was needed to break the gridlock in Congress when it comes to fighting Climate Change.

Her answer: Elect fewer members of the Tea Party

Reporter: ‘What can we do to get the Congress unstuck and stop denying science?”

Wasserman Schultz: “Elect fewer members of the Tea Party. That’s the political answer.”

Congresswoman Schultz then proceeded to mock Marco Rubio’s belief that man made Climate Change doesn’t exist and she continued to spread the myth that 97% of scientists believe in Global Warming just before she dropped, what should have been considered, a political oops: A carbon tax is coming (2:36-4:02):

”The carbon tax, the Cap and Trade legislation, that was originally a Republican idea. It was developed in the 1970′s when the clean air act was initially adopted. We’ve already got energy companies who are changing and national companies that are planning for the fact that are going to have to pay a carbon tax. They know it’s coming. That’s not the only solution…”

video at the link:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/05/dnc-chair-wasserman-schultz-the-democrat-carbon-tax-is-coming-video/

workingclass artist on May 16, 2014 at 8:55 AM

Engineers have to understand physics. 90% of science is physics, even the life sciences.

No, engineers don’t have deep specific training in climate science. But a good understanding of physics does qualify someone to explain climactic processes to a general audience.

I don’t think Bill Nye is unqualified. I think he’s just wrong.

Bat Chain Puller on May 16, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Excellent point.
Many Climate “skeptics” are engineers. Engineers don’t typically fall to emotional arguments and political posturing. Bill Nye being a giant exception. They deal in the practical real world.

Engineering: The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems.

Bill Nye abandoned engineering principles when he picked up the alarmist position.

airupthere on May 16, 2014 at 8:58 AM

And as Mark Steyn has been pointing out Michael Mann regularly attacks distinguished scientists who don’t go along with the AGW nonsense. Mann doesn’t dispute their science but calls them names and denounces them as not being scientists.

Future scientists will be very embarrassed by this whole thing.

gwelf on May 16, 2014 at 9:01 AM

One of the most politically/ideologically polarizing topics I discuss with liberals is the whole AGW “climate change” thing. I have no doubt climate does change, and goes through some pretty major swings of the pendulum as it’s done since the Earth has been orbiting the Sun. Where I’m sitting right now in NY, was under a mile or two of solid ice just 10,000-15,000 years ago, and not a single coal plant or SUV was to be found.

It’s only been 100 years or so since the Industrial Revolution, and for anyone…especially those who are scientists specializing in climate change cause and effect…to claim with a straght face that man has been responsible for some “drastic changes in Earth’s climate” and that we can somehow reverse that, it’s ridiculous.

If the science were truly settled, there wouldn’t be much to debate…it would be universally accepted. Absolutely we should strive to do what we can to cut out pollutants and preserve our national parks, etc. We all want the cleanest air and water we can possibly have…no one is arguing otherwise. But AGW has become of cult of sorts. And may Gaia help those who argue otherwise.

JetBoy on May 16, 2014 at 9:06 AM

Nonsense . . . . . everyone knows the only kind of people who attempt “dissent suppression” are paranoid tyrants, who are trying to control the masses.
.
.
.
Oh, wait . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on May 16, 2014 at 9:07 AM

The same people who were running the Catholic Church back in the 1520′s and persecuted Nicolaus Copernicus are running the University system/Scientific community today. Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei would recognize them.

oscarwilde on May 16, 2014 at 9:12 AM

And they say “There’s no such thing as a stupid question.”

RoadRunner on May 16, 2014 at 9:17 AM

I’m an engineer. Bill Nye has no excuse. He completely disregards the scientific process. Anyone promoting anything akin to how the alarmist view of AGW is presented would be ripped to shreds in front of the class of any serious engineering professor. You can’t have such a pathetic correlation of predicted and observed data and perpetually prop it up with moving goal posts and unfalsifiable theory. It’s a butchering of the scientific process and ruins the meaning of the word “science”. We are supposed to use “science” as a method to form an unbiased explanation of the observable world. Not create a new religion with it.

MechanicalBill on May 16, 2014 at 9:19 AM

I blame the gays for global warming and climate change, they caused the last ice age.

Bishop on May 16, 2014 at 9:22 AM

I’m an engineer(manufacturing) and my knowledge of climate science wouldn’t trump anyones, except maybe a phych. major.

jmtham156 on May 16, 2014 at 9:25 AM

Engineers have to understand physics. 90% of science is physics, even the life sciences.

No, engineers don’t have deep specific training in climate science. But a good understanding of physics does qualify someone to explain climactic processes to a general audience.

I don’t think Bill Nye is unqualified. I think he’s just wrong.

Bat Chain Puller on May 16, 2014 at 8:50 AM

And engineer is an individual who knows just enough science to apply basic concepts through advance mathematics to produce tangible results, without knowing enough science to formulate the very concepts that they are capable of practically applying.

Yes, I studied theoretical physics for 5 years in college before signing a record contract and running off to become a Rock Star, and yes, I have worked with a lot of engineer’s while I worked in the Aerospace industry building Communications satellites and other DARPA stuff.

Yes, your average engineer knows far more about science than your average bricklayer or housewife, but he isn’t a scientist. Which of course explains why he is called an engineer, rather than a scientist.

Bill Nye isn’t a scientist, he’s a modern day version of Bozo the Clown, a television entertainer whose specialty is entertaining children who don’t know enough to know whether he is deceiving them or not and who are as yet to intellectually immature to recognize an appeal to authority fallacy even when it’s standing on their neck.

oscarwilde on May 16, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Why is there a picture of Michael Caine with this article?

Pervygrin on May 16, 2014 at 9:41 AM

This politicized corruption has happened in many disciplines and is pervasive in academia.

It is a breakdown of the culture.

workingclass artist on May 16, 2014 at 8:34 AM

My thoughts exactly when reading the column. It’s difficult to NOT see the same pattern repeated all over the culture. The only question is: is it a syndrome or a conspiracy.

“Truth has fallen in the public square and uprightness cannot enter. Truth has fallen and he who departs from evil makes himself a prey.”

Cleombrotus on May 16, 2014 at 9:41 AM

So the National Academy of Science consensus study of 97% of scientists agree… that was based on a Google search (read the abstract – it’s incredible) is now null and void since you can’t count scientists that are silenced based on politics.

mjbrooks3 on May 16, 2014 at 9:44 AM

The global warmists are not quite yet at the level of the Milleniumists who would predict that the world is going to end on some particular date but they are getting there. Meteorological science is not like a religion where some things are taken on faith or it is not a science. At this point some warmists are also moving in the direction of the zealots of the Inquisition who burned heretics at the stake

KW64 on May 16, 2014 at 9:49 AM

The only criteria that should be used to publish a scientific paper is the science itself, not whether it gives aid and comfort to one’s political opponents.

That ship sailed a long time ago. The abuses and corruption of science and its practitioners has been chronicled for years at:

http://climateaudit.org/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://motls.blogspot.com/
http://junkscience.com/
http://www.climatedepot.com/

The only true thing that can be said about so called “climate science” is that it is little more than outright fraud.

earlgrey on May 16, 2014 at 9:56 AM

And [sic] engineer is an individual who knows just enough science

Eff you. And check your grammar/spelling, smart guy.

Oh, and the plural of “engineer” is “engineers”, not “engineer’s”

Bat Chain Puller on May 16, 2014 at 10:04 AM

A century from now people are going to look back at this whole greenhouse effect/global warming/climate change thing and say … ‘really? How in the world were people that naive.’

This is the greatest farce of our lifetimes.

forheremenaremen on May 16, 2014 at 8:09 AM

AGW will be considered the phrenology, eugenics, and Piltdown Man – all proclaimed to be ‘settled science’ at one time – of the 21st century.

Resist We Much on May 16, 2014 at 10:04 AM

Yes. Next question?

I just saw on the MSN home page that the CA wildfires are due to “climate change.” Some of these fires could be prevented if these Eco-idiots just cut down large swaths of trees so the fire can’t jump, but we’re not allowed to even discuss that option.

Maddie on May 16, 2014 at 10:19 AM

And it just isn’t climate science, its also origins, diet and medicine to add a few more. The government mavens control the debate and thus the money.

There was a good book out “The Great Influenza” by liberal author John Barry which chronicled how the deadliest plague was stopped, not by the efforts of government sponsored “scientists”, but by a collection of men underwritten by the oil mogul Rockefeller.

There are countless books on the Market, such as Gary Taubes’ “Good Calories, Bad Calories” that also indirectly shows that those on the government payroll forced upon us the profoundly bad “food pyramid” (which has now been replaced by the equally ridiculous “MyPlate”).

The bumper-sticker pattern for recognizing junk science is when you see government underwriting (which implies a political agenda), and the failure to use observable science and rely on models and synthesis (scientist bias). You see those, it is best to lock your doors and keep moving out of the neighborhood.

Reuben Hick on May 16, 2014 at 10:22 AM

It’s a butchering of the scientific process and ruins the meaning of the word “science”.

Progressivism metaphorically is a cancer, and it quickly metastasizes the entire body (society/culture) – language is one of the first things attacked. We could spend the rest of the day identifying the words that have been redefined or deconstructed to lose all meaning – all for the benefit of the Progressive to promote human impoverishment rather than human flourishing.

“Science”, like “marriage” is one of those words that has no meaning when used by Progressives.

One of the reasons why Progressives seek to destroy the language is that they can use their meaning of the word and fully expect you to understand the word under the traditional sense and bully you over it.

I saw on an elementary school bill-board. “When you can be either right or kind, choose kind”. This is an excellent example of deconstruction. Being “right” most often can be objective in its measure ( 2+2 = 4). Being “kind” is very subjective. The Progressives hope that you think of “kind” in one way while they use “kind” to mean that it is cruel and unkind to correct someone’s error (it may hurt their self esteem). Also, by making this statement, they also suggest that being right can often be unkind and that Progressives value their brand of “kindness” over being technically right.

This allows them to dismiss objective arguments because they take a back seat to their highly subjective and malleable opinions.

Reuben Hick on May 16, 2014 at 10:35 AM

Engineers have to understand physics. 90% of science is physics, even the life sciences.

Bat Chain Puller on May 16, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Well in that case since you’re an engineer with an understanding of physics and since science is 90% physics you should have no trouble explaining what purpose an aqueous bromine solution serves in analyzing a coal sample.

Oldnuke on May 16, 2014 at 10:55 AM

The Earth is flat.

And very warm.

trigon on May 16, 2014 at 10:55 AM

I blame the gays for global warming and climate change, they caused the last ice age.

Bishop on May 16, 2014 at 9:22 AM

Gotta have enough ice for the happy hour cocktails, ya know :P

JetBoy on May 16, 2014 at 11:00 AM

You can’t have such a pathetic correlation of predicted and observed data and perpetually prop it up with moving goal posts and unfalsifiable theory. It’s a butchering of the scientific process and ruins the meaning of the word “science”. We are supposed to use “science” as a method to form an unbiased explanation of the observable world. Not create a new religion with it.
 
MechanicalBill on May 16, 2014 at 9:19 AM

 
No more calls, please. We have a winner.

rogerb on May 16, 2014 at 11:08 AM

Yes, your average engineer knows far more about science than your average bricklayer or housewife, but he isn’t a scientist. Which of course explains why he is called an engineer, rather than a scientist.

oscarwilde on May 16, 2014 at 9:29 AM

An engineering degree is a science degree. Although I wouldn’t call an engineer a scientist either. “Engineer” implies the use of applied science over theoretical science. The main difference is that an engineer must keep both feet in reality. A scientist is free to attempt to expand that reality. But there is a hitch. A scientist can be wrong and usually get away with it. Things can work “in theory”. And if it turns out to be wrong, well the results didn’t support the hypothesis. Another job well done. An engineer, however, can be sued for that crap. Oh the bridge worked “in theory” but the observed data indicated a bunch of people fell to their death. That excuse doesn’t fly in engineering. If AGW theory was somehow in the hands of engineers, we would all be waiting on the lawsuit for having wasted trillions. Scientists just say “oops” and change the title back to “global cooling” or whatever fits. And that is my completely unbiased view of scientists vs engineers. ;)

MechanicalBill on May 16, 2014 at 11:10 AM

And [sic] engineer is an individual who knows just enough science

Eff you. And check your grammar/spelling, smart guy.

Oh, and the plural of “engineer” is “engineers”, not “engineer’s”

Bat Chain Puller on May 16, 2014 at 10:04 AM

ROTFLMAO… typical pedantic engineer. I’ll start paying attention to you, once you explain the significance of a Ricci Tensor as it applies to Riemannian manifold deviations.

oscarwilde on May 16, 2014 at 11:13 AM

And that is my completely unbiased view of scientists vs engineers. ;)

MechanicalBill on May 16, 2014 at 11:10 AM

I couldn’t agree more. I never said engineers were stupid or that they lacked an education in the physical sciences, I have a great deal of respect for engineers, I’ll just never mistake an engineer for a scientist.

oscarwilde on May 16, 2014 at 11:17 AM

MechanicalBill on May 16, 2014 at 11:10 AM

I’d say that’s a pretty accurate comparison. I do have one issue with your post though. It’s this sentence.

Scientists just say “oops” and change the title back to “global cooling” or whatever fits.

The people doing this aren’t really scientists. They’re just bureaucratic pencil pushers in search of grant money trying to further a political agenda. Real scientists would welcome challenges to their theories.

Oldnuke on May 16, 2014 at 11:21 AM

Is the global-warming establishment suppressing dissent?
May 16, 2014 8:01 AM by Ed Morrissey

E pur si muove, 21st-century style.

Very similar to…

Movie Review: Expelled
By Ed Morrissey • April 18th, 2008

E pur si muove, for the 21st century.

ITguy on May 16, 2014 at 11:22 AM

ITguy on May 16, 2014 at 11:22 AM

Hmmm,is it plagiarism when you are copying yourself without attribution?

oscarwilde on May 16, 2014 at 11:26 AM

oscarwilde on May 16, 2014 at 11:26 AM

Ed’s very consistent, isn’t he? :-)

Ed’s response was similar because the situations are similar:
“academics” who will not tolerate any freedom of thought or slightest deviation from the group-think “consensus”.

The religions/cults of (macro-)evolution and anthropogenic global warming cannot tolerate dissent, and seek to immediately silence anyone who dares to question them.

As an old HotAir commenter said:

Those who can’t handle the truth,
try to silence those who speak it.

Red Pill on June 7, 2008 at 2:12 PM

ITguy on May 16, 2014 at 11:36 AM

Beware the AGW Inquisitor.

Because expressing doubt about AGW is like being a Holocaust Denier!

s1im on May 16, 2014 at 11:41 AM

Because expressing doubt about AGW is like being a Holocaust Denier!

s1im on May 16, 2014 at 11:41 AM

???? No it’s not.

Oldnuke on May 16, 2014 at 11:43 AM

Not going to be pulled into a pissing match.

There are fundamental principles of climate physics that any degreed engineer should be well acquainted with (I certainly am): Albedo, Coriolis effect, thermal transfer, fluid dynamics, gas compression/expansion, enthalpy of fusion and vaporization, etc.

Is an engineer qualified to explain these to a general audience? Yes or no?

Bat Chain Puller on May 16, 2014 at 11:45 AM

Beware the AGW Inquisitor.

Because expressing doubt about AGW is like being a Holocaust Denier!

s1im on May 16, 2014 at 11:41 AM

No one expects the Spanish Globull Warming Inquisition…

oscarwilde on May 16, 2014 at 11:45 AM

Is an engineer qualified to explain these to a general audience? Yes or no?

Bat Chain Puller on May 16, 2014 at 11:45 AM

<—Points to Bill Nye… You were saying Professor??

oscarwilde on May 16, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Is an engineer qualified to explain these to a general audience? Yes or no?

Bat Chain Puller on May 16, 2014 at 11:45 AM

<—Points to Bill Nye… You were saying Professor??

oscarwilde on May 16, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Or to put it another way, theoretically one would assume that the answer should be affirmative, however the empirical evidence show that the bridge did in fact collapse.

oscarwilde on May 16, 2014 at 11:50 AM

I couldn’t agree more. I never said engineers were stupid or that they lacked an education in the physical sciences, I have a great deal of respect for engineers, I’ll just never mistake an engineer for a scientist.

oscarwilde on May 16, 2014 at 11:17 AM

But you sure are implying very strongly that engineers are stupid.
You’re coming off a lot like a DOCTOR Sheldon Cooper with crap like this:

ROTFLMAO… typical pedantic engineer. I’ll start paying attention to you, once you explain the significance of a Ricci Tensor as it applies to Riemannian manifold deviations.

oscarwilde on May 16, 2014 at 11:13 AM

I also have an engineering degree, and I would never call myself a scientist either, because frankly I’ve known a lot of “scientists” – PhDs (sometimes multiple PhDs) in Quantum Physics and Nuclear Chemistry and the like – smart people, but they couldn’t even tie their own shoes or color match a pair of socks. Very little connection to the real world.

But engineers are far more qualified than at least half the voters in this country to analyze and debate the validity of the science and data than most of the AGW alarmists, who aren’t even scientists OR engineers – just politicians – or like Bill Nye, who although he may have an engineering degree is nothing more than a children’s show entertainer.

dentarthurdent on May 16, 2014 at 12:14 PM

Submitted:

The fact that Bill Nye is “only” an engineer does not ipso facto disqualify him as a commentator on climate issues.

That’s my last. Peace out.

Bat Chain Puller on May 16, 2014 at 12:24 PM

Mother Earth religion. Old as time.

John the Libertarian on May 16, 2014 at 12:31 PM

It’s all about protecting the AGW narrative and the money to be had off of it.

I made a snarky remark regarding AGW on my FB page about the cold weather (it’s May 16 and it snowed in northern IL today). A life-long friend from childhood replied that climate change is real and “get ready for even crazier weather”.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that he works for the EPA.

brushman on May 16, 2014 at 1:02 PM

Ed, you should quote IOP’s statement, which has the full referee’s report. Bengsston’s work was garbage. He pulled a quote out of context to say he was being censored. Here is the link to IOP’s statement:

http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times

Hal_10000 on May 16, 2014 at 2:07 PM

It’s quite obvious that you should exhibit more humility so soon after embarrassing yourself this way.

blink on May 16, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Oh – but he be a really smart scientist – not like us mere engineer dummies…

dentarthurdent on May 16, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Oh – but he be a really smart scientist – not like us mere engineer dummies…

dentarthurdent on May 16, 2014 at 3:40 PM

He’s SWalker, Theoretical Physicist, Rock Star and Astronaut.

DarkCurrent on May 16, 2014 at 4:11 PM

He’s SWalker, Theoretical Physicist, Rock Star and Astronaut.

DarkCurrent on May 16, 2014 at 4:11 PM

I didn’t remember SWalker being quite so condescending…..

dentarthurdent on May 16, 2014 at 4:27 PM

I didn’t remember SWalker being quite so condescending…..

dentarthurdent on May 16, 2014 at 4:27 PM

I’ve been on the other sides of a few arguments with him before. This is exactly his style. And who else ever frequently claimed to be both a Scientist and a Rock Star?

DarkCurrent on May 16, 2014 at 4:32 PM

And who else ever frequently claimed to be both a Scientist and a Rock Star?

DarkCurrent on May 16, 2014 at 4:32 PM

Wasn’t Jimi Hendrix also an astrophysicist – or was he just astro planing?

Hmmmmm – well Danica McKellar and Mayim Bialik are close – but not quite….
;)

dentarthurdent on May 16, 2014 at 5:10 PM

Is the global-warming establishment suppressing dissent?

Is the dromedary not racist?
Is the camel not sexist?

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on May 16, 2014 at 6:32 PM

These days, science appears more to be a belief system in which heretics are summarily dismissed.

These days, Ed, you just don’t seem to be up with the science. Not surprising from someone whose last science course was probably in high school.

…whose heresy was to challenge the anthropogenic global-warming establishment — not by disputing AGW, but to point out the errors in the hypotheses…

What “errors”? What hypotheses, in particular, Ed? So you put yourself ahead of the adjudicators of scientific work – those who are highly trained and experienced in their field? Seriously, Ed?

oakland on May 16, 2014 at 9:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2